View Single Post
Old 19-02-2021, 14:04   #63
Hugh
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,086
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Re: Uber licence revoked

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf View Post
[/B]

They could fold the company then no one is employed, then re-employ under new contracts that are more favourable to uber ,i would imagine there is a way around this without breaking the court ruling.
the point was that Uber were saying they weren’t employed by Uber.

This gives a good explanation

https://www.londonreconnections.com/...-uber-not-app/

He’s updated it today (@garius)

https://twitter.com/garius/status/13...006006274?s=21

Quote:
This is because the repercussions for Uber of this decision potentially extend beyond actually treating their workers properly.

Because Uber has been MASSIVELY avoiding paying UK tax for years.

Uber processes payments in Holland. Lots of tech firms do this to dodge UK and other countries' tax.

When you book an Uber, you are paying their Dutch subsidiary, but being driven around by one of their UK ones.

Beyond this (remember I mentioned tax) they have also not been paying VAT. That's one reason they get to undercut the prices of everyone else.

They do this by claiming that EVERY Uber driver is a tiny contracting cab firm. Who all then magically fall under the VAT threshold.

That's why this ruling has potentially larger repercussions. Because if they have employees, that very much reopens the debate about Uber THEMSELVES being the cab firm.

Which means they're then liable for VAT.

About £5billion of it, and counting.


---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
1) I merely stated undeniable facts. You can't argue for a case X using reasons A, B, etc when those same reasons also apply elsewhere. I can well imagine that is a basic legal principle.
2) What "law" created them as employees in the first place. There wasn't one.

No doubt the drivers will be whining about what is to come. They won't able to work anywhere else at the time. They will have to be available throughout those fixed hours, not just when they feel like it or are not doing other work.
The Supreme Court beg to differ.
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it
.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.

Last edited by Hugh; 19-02-2021 at 14:01.
Hugh is offline   Reply With Quote